This is an archive of past discussions with User:Shibbolethink. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Americans United for Separation of Church and State, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Religious right, Barry Lynn and Religious left. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Brolico, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. The article has been edited in order to resolve the issues that were raised. I hope it's sufficient for now, but please don't hesitate to let me know if you have other concerns or suggestions for improvement. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
speedy
Your patrolling of new pages is generally quite helpful , but please be a little more careful about speedy nominations. I and others have needed to decline a number of your nomination: the head of a national organization is notable; so is the winner of a national competition. And all Olympic athletes are considered notable. In fact, the criterion for speedy deletion by A7 is just some plausible indication of importance, which is deliberately much less than actual notability. Please re-read WP:CSD and WP:Deletion Policy before making further nominations. (And also WP:N, including all the special rules. )
Erroneous deletion nomination harm Wikipedia, both by creating unnecessary work for other people, and especially by discouraging newcomers. The continuing arrival of new editors is the only way to preserve the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Before you archived your recent discussion about Born Rich you expressed some uncertainty about the reliable source status of a source. If I understood correctly you were referring to the Associated Press report about Weil's lawsuit. I can't think of any reason this wouldn't be reliable: the AP is about as "reliable" as news reports get. WP:NEWSORG specifically mentions the AP as a reliable source news agency, and you can find numerous discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that confirm this, including very recently this one.) As I've already noted on the article talk page, in addition to the complete, official AP report available here via HighBeam Research (see WP:HIGHBEAM for more about Wikipedia's use of that resource), the report is reprinted at the website of the First Amendment Center[1], and the relevant content can also be found online in a variety of major papers, such as the Arizona Daily Sun[2] and the Sun-Sentinel[3]. The value of this report is that it is a contemporaneous news report of the facts of the lawsuit and its disposition. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah Gotcha. I was really just unfamiliar with Highbeam as a way to get Associated Press reports. Now that you've explained it, it makes a lot of sense, and I'm definitely in. Keep it the way it is!--Shibbolethink(♔♕)01:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Blanking edits / Edit Warring
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Born Rich (film), you may be blocked from editing. Don't continue to remove well sourced material that is supported by WP:RSes. There was an ongoing discussion on the talk page about the changes. The changes were an improvement reflecting the source actual statement. Please do not continue to make reverts or blank edits that have been made to improve the accuracy of the article. If necessary we can take this to Administrators Noticeboard.JS18WlKlPEDlA (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Your revert in Mattress Performance
You're recreating a one-sentence paragraph. To get an article to GAR, which this article will never reach because it has too much activity on it, one of the requirements is to NOT have one-sentence paragraphs.--A21sauce (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it needs to be much older for it to get there anyway. This is still a very controversial topic. Also, what I reverted was just your addition of a parenthetical, which, mistake me if I'm wrong, is still a part of that same sentence.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)22:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
You deleted a direct quote from an article, suggesting it's defamatory? How so? Which part? Is it any more defamatory than repeating an accusation of rape (which comes only from one person, quoted in the media), that a university and the district attorney did not find compelling enough to act upon?70.209.98.219 (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's defamation because it asserts criminal intent on the part of Emma, and she's protected via BLP. We avoid that claim of defamation in the rest of the article re: Paul because it states over and over again that he was found innocent. The article is talking about the accusation, and it does it with proportional weight. You're probably right, it might even ESCAPE defamation because its a quote, not a statement of fact, but it still fails WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Adding this quote makes it unbalanced, hands down.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)17:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see criminal intent in "fudging" details. And where does Undue fit in? There's so much commentary about what he's alleged to have done, etc. etc. Is that Undue too? I'm not trying to be pedantic here. The lawsuit has a lot of detail in it, and this article covers his accusations only at a high level. Meanwhile there's tons of detail about the allegations against him that were all dismissed in the end.70.209.98.219 (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you'll find if you read the Allegations subsection that there's an immense amount of detail given to these things. I'm pretty sure the part about Emma lying to media about rescinding the complaint is also in there.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)17:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
You know, if your gonna make false accusations (pun intended) like this [4], you might want to read the reference that was there. I'm OK with disagreeing on whether something should be in an article. I'm not OK with you putting that kind of form statement on my talk page when you know it's not true. Not a good faith move dude/dudette.2600:1011:B154:1E8:B9DC:380B:DF1E:1476 (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right, the form statement is inadequate. it's not that it didn't rely on a good source, it's that it violates COATRACK and UNDUE. Check the italics. You can always remove it from your talk page, that's very much a thing people do all the time.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)17:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
"You say potato, I say Potathoe". You seem to be really keen on a one sided BLP here. Your arguments change so much, not sure I can keep up. BLP, UNDUE, Coatrack, and yet all from a mainstream source (Bloomberg) covering the topic. Anyway, I think I know where you stand - OK he's a rapist and she's a saint. You win. Can't have anything that suggests otherwise, even when it's in Bloomberg ;) 70.209.98.219 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
See, that's funny, because yesterday User:BoboMeowCat said I was editing purely in favor of Nungesser. I think when you combine these two accusations, it really reflects my NPOV. lol.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)17:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
but I've had an annoying week and I'm too tired to keep up with all of the discussions, some that seem to go nowhere. TBH I thought you had settled the debate on the commentary subsection pretty well, but I'm too tired at the moment to keep arguing. Anyway, your very careful approach is appreciated. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah)(talk)(contribs)00:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Adam Kotsko shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. I suggest you self-revert and return to the talk page.Keri (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
See, I haven't violated 3RR. I haven't violated edit warring. We're talking about it on the talk page, and I'm trying to bring it to an agreeable place on the article itself. You're just removing it entirely. That's not working together.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)22:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
What do you hope to gain by this? It's patently obvious that we're not yet edit warring, and I don't think it's gonna get there. This is spurious at best. Harassment at worst.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)22:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I would also have notified you about the Discretionary Sanctions that apply, but I see you have received such notice already a few months ago. Keri (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, as I'm sure you're aware, each individual "Discretionary Sanctions" situation is distinct. Just because "Discretionary Sanctions" applied in an article I discussed involving Waldorf education does not mean that it's improper to notify me of discretionary sanctions re: an entirely different and unrelated article. That's how these sanctions work. But I'm well aware. I (and the several other users who have my viewpoint, though they may be more extremist) are well within the rules re:BLP and WP:UNDUE, and I figure that'll play out in time. I wish you the best in figuring that out.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)04:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Awaiting your (and the several other users who have your viewpoint) comments at the talk page. Please join the discussion. Keri (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
While it doesn't require administrator intervention at this point, I have left some comments there expanding on what the key aspects of policy regarding this dispute are. Keri has restored the stable revision of the article; this is not an unreasonable measure and I would advise the proponents of including the section to avoid escalating the situation further by edit warring. Keri also claims that a consensus had previously been reached against the inclusion of the joke specifically. While she can elaborate on whatever the previous consensus was, I will say that controversy can be discussed in an article (strict conditions apply, see my AN3 comments), but dedicating an entire controversy section to a joke made in bad taste and nothing else is likely to be seen by any reasonable person as undue weight. If you're going to focus on the inclusion of a controversy section, focus on actual stances taken and positions held that have generated legitimate, noteworthy controversy. Not a single joke. Just my $.02 on that. Swarmwe ♥ our hive07:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. I just wanted to explain why I reverted your edit to Chappie (film). The problem is that you interpreted the ratings of the review aggregators. Our job is simply to report what they say, not to interpret whether they were favorable or negative. This is what the original text did. The aggregators catalog a subset of reviews, and they are not a statistically rigorous examination. This means we can not extrapolate that all reviews were negative simply because the cataloged ones were negative. The original wording, which simply reported the ratings without any kind of interpretation, was correct per MOS:FILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
While you're right about the need for WP editors to report what critics say instead of reporting what we think, etc. you're wrong about this particular point. Per MOS:FILM, the lead should include "reception of the film by critics and audiences, box office grosses and milestones, controversies, summary of awards and honors, spin-offs (e.g., sequels, remakes, other media), and any significant impact the film has made in society." This is also covered in MOS:LEAD, as much of the positive critical review is well sourced in the Chappie_(film)#Critical_response section. Literally every movie article on WP does it, and not because they're all wrong. They are all interpreting MOS:FILM the same way. --Shibbolethink(♔♕)18:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
This is known as a "what about X" or "other stuff exists" argument. The article already describes the critical reception, which is sourced. Introducing unsourced original research is not an improvement. I can see that Return of the Jedi needs a bit of copy-editing to fix its MOS violations and poor grammar, and I'll probably get around to that eventually. But it does not impact on whether poor grammar and original research should be introduced into Chappie (film). If you look at Talk:Chappie (film)#Reception, you can see that this was already discussed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: okay, so then if we have valid and well-regarded secondary sources which discuss the film as having received "mixed to negative" reviews, why can we not use that language, in your eyes? It's not voicing our opinion, it's citing secondary sources on critical consensus in the lead. Which is exactly what MOS:FILM wants. There are thesetwo very clear sources which directly reference the film's negative reception.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)19:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
There are a few issues. First, "mixed to negative" and "mixed to positive" are considered poorly-written and redundant ("mixed" already includes both negative and positive) by WikiProject Film, where there's fairly strong consensus to avoid their use. I already found those sources that you linked above, and when I tried to include introductory text to the reception ("the film received negative reviews"), it was rejected. You can see part of the discussion at User talk:Sock/Archive 6#"When sources disagree...". The complaint was that sources disagree on whether the reception was mixed or negative, and I've since given up on trying to find any consensus on this issue. If you want to restart the discussion on Talk:Chappie (film), go ahead. It's been a while, and maybe nobody cares any more. For what it's worth, I agree with you that the film's reception was negative, but I'm tired of constantly arguing about every minor edit to the article. The consensus version is what you saw: to simply and neutrally report the aggregators without any interpretation of whether it was mixed, negative, or whatever. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand why this is how the article looks now, it just bugs me on a fundamental level re:MOS. When I and many other people go to an article about a film and read the Lead, we want a concise and to the point summary of the film, including how it was received. I think "mixed reviews" and/or "negative reviews" deserve to be in the lead, for exactly this reason. Review aggregators don't tell the reader enough. Especially since there are films, like Hook (film) which received a negative consensus from critics, but a positive consensus from a serious cult-following. The review aggregators alone don't tell that story effectively. I'll probably start up a new discussion on the talk page eventually, because this is all so ridiculous.--Shibbolethink(♔♕)20:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
